Judge to rule on judicial review bid over re-laid charges

A woman facing the re-laying of sexual offence charges has sought judicial clarification on police authority to reinstitute charges previously discharged by a High Court Master.

The applicant argues that this move violates the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJPIA) and constitutes abuse of process and overreach.

The matter has been assigned to Justice Devindra Rampersad, who first has to grant permission for it to proceed. She is represented by Lee Merry, SC, Peter Carter and Larry Boyer.

The charges, originally laid in April 2021, were discharged during sufficiency hearings on October 21, after prosecutors failed to meet court directions under AJIPA and the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2023.

The police re-laid the charges on November 8, prompting the applicant to file for judicial review.

The applicant contends that AJIPA explicitly requires an appeal to the Court of Appeal as the avenue for challenging the discharge of an accused by a master.

She argues that re-laying the charges is ultra vires, undermines the act’s legislative intent, and constitutes an abuse of the court process.

Her claim contends AJIPA’s reforms were designed to enforce strict compliance with pre-trial directives, preventing prosecutorial overreach and discouraging delays.

“The absence of explicit provisions allowing the re-laying of complaints under Section 6 indicates this action exceeds lawful authority,” her filing says, adding that re-laying charges after a discharge for noncompliance defeats AJIPA’s goal of efficient pre-trial processes.

“The decision to re-lay the charges in the circumstances of this case amounts to an abuse of process of the court.

The applicant has requested damages, a withdrawal of the charges or a stay of the criminal proceedings and declarations that the prosecution's actions contravene the law. Justice Rampersad’s ruling on leave will determine whether the case proceeds.

The applicant’s claim asserts AJIPA intended to streamline pre-trial proceedings and prevent noncompliance with court orders.

In an affidavit in support, she described how she felt when she learned the charges had been re-laid. She also detailed the chronology of events when the matter was heard in the magistrates’ court and later the High Court, where she was represented by attorney Terry Boyer.

She said, “I find it deeply unfair that the prosecution has persistently failed to meet deadlines set by the court and yet when the court correctly takes action to punish the prosecution, they can simply re-file the charges and start all over again.”

The legislation seeks to reduce protracted delays in the criminal justice system by replacing lengthy preliminary enquiries before magistrates with quicker sufficiency hearings before High Court Masters, while the rules seek to modernise the procedure for criminal cases and introduce sanctions for non-compliance by prosecutors and defence attorneys.

After AJIPA was proclaimed in December 2023, which abolished preliminary inquiries, the Judiciary said in a statement the legislation would aid in reducing delay and providing opportunities for stronger case management by the courts.

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, told the Parliament the new law introduced “a more effective case-management process, our criminal justice system will experience a reduction in the backlog of cases, fewer hearings and administrative processes related to the criminal enquiries will lead to cost savings for the legal system, and victims and witnesses will be spared the enormous challenges inherent in delayed proceedings.”

The limits of prosecutorial discretion under AJIPA have sparked recent debate after seven police officers initially accused of extortion were discharged, only to face new charges of misconduct a week later.

The re-laying of charges against the seven was announced in a press release from the police service.

Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher said, “The re-laying of these charges demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that justice is served. The TTPS will continue to work closely with the office of the DPP to ensure the proper determination of these matters.”

Shortly after the press release was issued, attorneys representing the seven officers said they were trying to verify the statement, since their clients were unaware of this development.